Peter Bone: Public expenditure in Scotland is £8,414 per head, yet in the east midlands it is a quarter less at £6,334. In Wellingborough, a secondary school has been demolished, there have been cuts in the police force and we do not have a local hospital. Why should the population of Wellingborough and the rest of the east midlands subsidise the population of Scotland by the massive amount of £2,080 a year? What is the justification for that huge difference in public expenditure?

David Cairns: It is only right to point out that my right hon. Friend has done more to advance the cause of disabled children than almost any other Member of the House, and much tribute is due to him. He is right to point out that as part of the comprehensive spending review settlement for the Department for Education and Skills in England money additional to that agreed with the Barnett consequentials at the time has been made available. His point underlines the fact that because of the strong economic performance of the United Kingdom over the past 10 years significant sums of additional money are going to education and health in Scotland, as they are throughout the rest of the UK. Obviously, it is for each of the devolved Administrations to decide how to spend the money made available to them, but my right hon. Friend makes an excellent case that additional resources should be spent on services for disabled children and I look forward to that happening.

Douglas Alexander: I certainly find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit China where I met a range of British businesses, including Scottish businesses, which are investing in that expanding economy. When one has the opportunity to meet such business people and discuss with them the challenges facing Scottish business in the global economy, it is perfectly obvious that the economic stability of the past 10 years has provided strong foundations on which to seek new markets, new prosperity and new jobs for Scotland.

Douglas Alexander: Notwithstanding that characteristically gracious question, may I pass on my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on assuming the leadership of the Westminster group of his party? I fear, however, that he will continue to articulate a case of "Scotland the Victim" rather than "Scotland the Brave". If one actually takes the opportunity to consider the FSB index of success report, one will recognise that Scotland is above Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark and Norway in terms of educational attainment. Scotland ranks seventh out of 32 for employment, representing equality of opportunity and how that exists.
	Of course, it is right to recognise that we face a very considerable challenge in terms of life expectancy and public health. Those areas of responsibility touch on the issue of poverty, for which both this House and the Scottish Parliament have responsibility, but I fail to see from the hon. Gentleman's argument how additional powers would help the Scottish Parliament, given that it has responsibility for health policy in Scotland. If he is concerned about health inequalities in Scotland, he will be better discussing them with the First Minister.

David Mundell: May I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State's comments about Lord Ewing?
	I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that one aspect of the Act of Union to be particularly celebrated is the retention of Scotland's distinct legal system. So like me and Jack McConnell, was he appalled by the Prime Minister's apparent willingness to ride roughshod over not just the Scottish legal system but the whole devolution settlement in seeking to agree a prisoner exchange deal with Libya? What hope can we have for the continuation of the Act of the Union if the First Minister and the Prime Minister do not even communicate?

David Mundell: The Minister will be aware that the subject of the elections was raised at First Minister's questions in the Scottish Parliament on 31 May, when the First Minister referred to his telephone discussions with the Secretary of State. Although I am pleased to learn that they were cordial, the First Minister also indicated his intention to push for
	"a more thorough and independent inquiry"—[ Scottish Parliament Official Report, 31 May 2007; c. 316.]
	into the Scottish election debacle. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister accede to that request?

Andrew Love: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Hills report says that of 4 million tenants nationwide, only about 5,000 to 6,000 move in any one year owing to employment-related factors, so existing mobility schemes simply do not work. Yet the number of homeless of people who live in socially rented housing is significantly higher than in any other tenures. That means that something must be done. What indications can she give us that she is considering this, and that action will be taken to help those people to get into employment?

Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. Friend also address the issue of enforced mobility in the social housing sector whereby people who live in terribly overcrowded conditions are forced to move away, as she says, from their jobs and homes to find satisfactory accommodation? Will she examine the Housing Corporation-funded scheme that was piloted by Luton community housing association, which enabled social housing to be extended in the same way that we have loft and other extensions in our homes, to enable families to retain their jobs, places at schools and all the links with their communities rather than being forced to move?

Brian Binley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I love you!
	I have also received correspondence from constituents—Mr. Stuart Little and Mr. Murray Pakes, who trained and invested many hours in becoming domestic energy assessors and home inspectors. They are now disillusioned and completely demotivated by the Government's broken promises to them. What should I tell them about reclaiming their costs? Can they sue the Government or shall I tell them that they will have to lose that money if, as is likely, they do not wish to proceed?

Yvette Cooper: I presume that it was not me whom the hon. Gentleman said he loved as he stood up! He should very honestly explain to his constituents his party's policy. His party has been campaigning for the end of energy certificates and for end to the work to be done by energy assessors. We have set out a programme to bring forward the energy certificates and HIPs at the earliest possible opportunity and we have set out steps to bring forward more energy certificates in advance of 1 August.

Yvette Cooper: Again, I have to say that we set out further details yesterday and we will update them on the Department's website so that people can be clear where work is already starting in order to start rolling out energy certificates both in social housing and as part of free energy certificates supported by the Department. The hon. Gentleman must be honest with his constituents about his party's policy. He has been campaigning to prevent the introduction of important measures that will cut carbon emissions from our homes by 1 million tonnes. Those measures are important, and hon. Members should stop contributing to greater uncertainty and making it difficult for energy assessors to start doing their jobs.

Martin Horwood: I thank the Minister for her reply, and I am pleased that she thinks that extensions to the green belt, where appropriate, are welcome. Does she accept, however, that the continuing policy of urban extensions, led by the market, will result in areas that have repeatedly been turned down for development—such as the so-called white land at Leckhampton, near my constituency—being placed under increasing pressure unless the protection of green belt status is extended to them? Will she reconsider the policy of market-led urban extension, which seems to encourage developers to focus on such affluent areas rather than on urban regeneration, social housing and struggling small villages or on counties such as Cornwall, which need and want the housing more?

Tom Brake: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will attempt to do what I am being encouraged to do.
	In an article headlined "House of Knaves" in  The Daily Telegraph, the vote was described as "an abysmal decision" with MPs
	"acting in a way uncomfortably reminiscent of Communist officials in East Germany".
	The  Daily Mail headline was no more flattering:
	"MPs' freedom of information cover-up is a dark day for democracy".
	 The Sun was characteristically blunt:
	"MPs back squalid secrecy Bill".
	My Bill—

Tom Brake: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am about to do so.
	My Bill will demonstrate to our constituents that Members are committed not only to protecting freedom of information legislation, but to reinforcing it. It will strengthen freedom of information powers in three key areas: it will remove the ministerial veto; it will limit the time allowed for public authorities to respond to requests involving consideration of the public interest; and it will extend the range of bodies covered by freedom of information legislation.
	It is, of course, true that the ministerial veto has never been exercised. Members might consider that to be a reason for maintaining it, as Ministers have shown considerable self-restraint in not exercising it. I prefer the contrary argument: if it has not been used, it is because the safeguards work and there is no need for a veto. Furthermore, the fact that the veto has not been used does not mean that Ministers are not actively considering using it. In a letter to Lord Falconer, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said he wanted to
	"guard more effectively against the incremental harm to the policy development process that must inevitably arise from the disclosure of individually innocuous submissions".
	It is not clear to me exactly how individually innocuous submissions become lethal when accumulated. The Secretary of State went on to bemoan the
	"discernible trend within the Information Tribunal that decisions on the public interest test have not been falling in the government's favour in key cases."
	Most Members will agree that that is good news. However, in response to the tribunal's failing, the Secretary of State is considering exercising the Cabinet Minister veto to annul those decisions. Clearly, therefore, one senior Minister is considering exercising the veto.
	As a consequence of yesterday's information tribunal decision that the Deputy Prime Minister must hand over documents relating to Vauxhall towers—a development that the local council and UNESCO opposed—the right hon. Gentleman might also be considering use of the veto. We need to get rid of the veto before Ministers develop a taste for it.
	I shall now turn to the subject of time limits within which public authorities must respond to public interest freedom of information requests. In 2006, there were 1,326 requests to central Government Departments, and extensions were taken beyond the 20 working day period in order to consider whether information should be disclosed on public interest grounds. That is allowed as public authorities can use whatever time is "reasonable in the circumstances" to consider the Act's public interest test. Figures from a Ministry of Justice publication show that 211 of those extensions were for between 21 and 30 days, 125 were for between 31 and 40 days, and 370 were for more than 40 days—although for how much longer than 40 days is not known.
	If my Bill is passed, all such requests—totalling more than 700 in that year—will receive a response in less than 40 days. Departments such as the Home Office—which set a new record of 18 months for tardiness in answering a Freedom of Information Act request—would no longer be able to use delaying tactics to postpone the release of embarrassing information. Ben Leapman,  The Sunday Telegraph home affairs correspondent, is familiar with that tactic. He sought information relating to the Soham murderer, Ian Huntley, and security lapses at Woodhill prison, and he had to wait I8 months for a response to the request. The reason for the delay was simple: the Home Office's desire to hold back sensitive—in other words, damaging—information. My Bill would stop freedom of information requests being kicked into the long grass.
	Finally, the Bill proposes an extension to the definition of public authorities to include school academies and private contractors. When individual Members of Parliament draft legislation—albeit in this case ably supported by Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information—the Government can often point to technical flaws in the Bill. However, this Bill highlights the need for a debate about what constitutes public authorities. It is clear in my mind that academies are public authorities. The total capital costs of building 200 academies will be around £5 billion. The 27 opened so far received revenue funding of between £2 million and nearly £9 million in 2005-06. They are funded overwhelmingly from public sources. They teach our children, employ teachers mainly trained in UK institutions and they are monitored by Ofsted: there can be no argument about whether they should be covered by freedom of information legislation; they must be.
	The argument about private contractors doing work for public authorities is less clear cut. The Secretary of State does of course have the power to designate private contractors under section 5 of the Act, but has not chosen to do so. This Bill does not seek to include all private contractors working for a public authority within the scope of freedom of information legislation. The self-employed painter and decorator who does occasional painting and decorating jobs for the council should of course not be covered by FOI legislation. The definition in this Bill of a relevant contract—one whose value exceeds £1 million and extends for a period of more than 12 months—would ensure that he was not covered by it.
	However, what about Capita and the other huge firms to whom local authorities and central Government outsource large chunks of their business? They provide services for some local authorities and Government Departments that, for other areas and Departments, the public authority provides. They are, in effect, quasi public authorities. They must not be allowed to avoid the scrutiny provided by FOI legislation. They must be covered by the same rules.
	I have set out today in this Bill three simple measures that would demonstrate that we in this House are serious about freedom of information legislation. The Bill would strengthen FOI legislation, not emasculate it, and I urge Members to support it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Tom Brake, Norman Baker, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Nick Clegg, Tim Farron, Lynne Featherstone, Mr. David Heath, Simon Hughes, Mr. Dan Rogerson, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Andrew Stunell and Mr. Phil Willis.

Tony McNulty: I am fully aware of those points, and they go to my opening remarks. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman get out more, if that is the best he can do for a pastime.
	There were, of course, two areas of policy introduced into the Bill in the other place that were not welcomed by the Government—for reasons I will come to—concerning a power to search for firearms and provision to allow intercept to be admissible as evidence. I will return to both topics shortly after I have dealt with the substance of the Bill, as is appropriate for Second Reading.
	On serious crime prevention orders, we need to provide law enforcement with a flexible means of preventing the harm caused by serious crime before it can have an impact on our communities. Someone who brings heroin on to our streets must be caught quickly, brought to justice effectively and punished appropriately. However, is it not better to ensure that the heroin does not hit the streets, with the attendant harm, in the first place?
	Clause 1 creates such a tool in serious crime prevention orders. The name makes it clear: they will prevent the harm caused by serious crime before it occurs. They are not a punitive measure. They will be used only against those who have been proved to be involved in serious crime.

Tony McNulty: I am afraid that that was not entertaining. Very unusually for a man of the law like the hon. and learned Gentleman, it was obtuse. My answer goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies). I think that the House will agree that, in relative terms at least, we are probably well covered for homicide, terrorism and a range of other serious crimes. This Bill is designed to fill the gaps and lacunae that exist in the law, and its scope does not extend to every crime that, however remotely, could be construed as serious. As I said earlier, the Bill and schedules have been devised precisely to fill what we perceive to be holes in the existing legislation covering serious and organised crime. An ongoing review of homicide law will report in due course. The hon. and learned Gentleman is esteemed for his knowledge of that legislation: he should point out what he considers to be serious gaps in it to those carrying out the review, and not to me. I am sure that they will be pleased to hear from him, but this debate is not the appropriate location for such observations.
	As I was saying, clause 1 proposes serious crime prevention orders. Their name makes it clear that they will prevent the harm caused by serious crime before it occurs. They are not a punitive measure. They will be used only against those whom it has been proved to have been involved in serious crime.
	All hon. Members will have received the briefing from Liberty. In advance of discussion here and in Committee, I must note that—unusually—it contains important inaccuracies. In the main, I have high regard for Liberty briefings, even though I sometimes I disagree with them, but this one is littered with unfounded assertions and important inaccuracies. It seems to belong more to the Paris Hilton school of intellectual rigour, as it does not live up to Liberty's usual standards.
	The briefing states, for example, that
	"the Government may hope that these orders are a way of getting round the presumption of innocence because the applicable standard of proof will be the lowest civil standard of 'on the balance of probabilities'".
	That is absolutely wrong. My noble and learned Friend Baroness Scotland stated categorically in the other place that, in keeping with the House of Lords judgment in the case of McCann, we expect that the standard of proof required in relation to the question of whether a person has been involved in serious crime will be the same as in criminal cases, namely "beyond reasonable doubt."
	Liberty's assertion is thus entirely unfounded—a bit of a shame. Contrary to the statement in the briefing, the purpose of the orders is not to avoid the full rigours of criminal prosecution; they are aimed at preventing future behaviour, not punishing past behaviour. If a criminal prosecution is possible, it will be brought. As set out in clauses 1 and 6, the orders will contain only conditions that prevent the subject from further involvement in serious crime. That is set out clearly in the Bill and goes against Liberty's assertion that the conditions that can be put in place would amount to criminal sanctions. The conditions will be decided by the High Court, or the Crown Court in the case of an order made immediately on conviction, and can and will act only in a way that is compatible with convention rights.

Tony McNulty: It is right and proper to specify in the way that we have. I know of the concerns of the JCHR, but they might be more suitably explored in Committee, where assurances can be given. I take the point. Although I am relatively open on this matter, I probably do not share the concerns of the JCHR. Some of the concerns expressed in the other place were the other way around, in the sense that it was asked why one organisation—CIFAS or whoever else—should have sole rights under specification. So we are trying to make that broader. In the end, for the thing to work, it would be appropriate for any organisation that wants to seek the same status as CIFAS or any other specified organisation to do so. As I said, that can be explored more readily in Committee.
	I do not resile from all that I have said about data sharing and data matching being crucial in the fight against crime generally, and even more so in terms of serious and organised crime. However, it is right and proper that we put safeguards in place to prevent data mining and data phishing—a different sort of phishing from the fishing that was referred to earlier.
	On the proceeds of crime, law enforcement agencies have used the powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to ever-increasing effect. In 2006-07, they recovered a record total of more than £125 million of assets from criminals, representing a fivefold increase over five years. Last month we launched a new asset recovery action plan to double last year's total to £250 million per year by 2009-10. Clauses 68 to 76 bring forward a set of proposals that will contribute to the delivery of this new target.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a hierarchy involved. As my noble and learned Friend Baroness Scotland made clear in terms of McCann, we expect that the standard of proof required on the question of whether a person is involved in serious crime will be the same as that in criminal cases, but there may well be different standards in terms of prevention. I do not resile from what I said about the Liberty briefing and what I thought were rather poor assertions, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), that dimension and the nature of that hierarchy can be properly explored more fully in Committee.
	The last two points raised in the other House—not with the support of the Government—were those of intercept evidence and the power to search for firearms. I shall deal with the latter issue first. Clause 78 was introduced into the Bill by amendment. The fact remains that there is already sufficient legislation in place to search for firearms. Section 47 of the Firearms Act 1968 gives powers to detain and search, and a constable may enter any place to conduct the search. Powers to seal off an area are provided by section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but under strict safeguards. ACPO has confirmed its very strong view that it is fully satisfied with its powers in that area and is concerned about the wide extension of powers that the amendment provides. Liberty has also expressed its concerns, agreeing with the Government's position on the total lack of safeguards in this clause.  [ Interruption . ] Well, to be fair and as I said at the beginning, what Liberty said about the orders earlier on in the Bill was unusually sloppy, lacked intellectual rigour and was assertion rather than fact, and I meant "unusually" as well as all the other words. I take very seriously what Liberty says, which is why I am all the more disappointed when I have cause to be.
	Under the power to which I referred, any constable could decide to seal off an area with no requirement for referral to a senior officer, no indication of the extent of that area and with no time limits specified. On balance, that is a reckless provision that would disproportionately affect our communities and potentially result in public disorder, and it is not terribly well thought out. Appropriate, proportionate, intelligence-led policing, such as that conducted by Operation Trident in the Metropolitan area, has proved to be successful in tackling gun crime. Stigmatising certain communities by cordoning off areas in the way provided for in the clause would not achieve that goal, advance what is already on the statute book in terms of searching for firearms, or help in any way to develop community cohesion. For those reasons, as the House has probably already worked out, we intend to remove the clause from the Bill in Committee.
	Let us consider intercept as evidence. The amendment, which was inserted into the Bill on Report in another place, is simple. It would alter the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to allow the prosecution to apply to the court for permission to use intercept as evidence in terrorism or serious crime cases. Unless or until an application was made, the current ban on intercept as evidence would stand. The amendment assumes that if a decision were made to offer intercept as evidence, regular public interest immunity provisions would be sufficient to protect sensitive material from disclosure. We believe that that is a rash assumption.
	The Government opposed the amendment because we believe it to be unworkable and deficient. It is unworkable because it provides none of the safeguards—beyond public interest immunity—that the intelligence, law enforcement and communications agencies have told us are essential to protect capabilities, techniques and resources from disclosure if intercept were used evidentially. I believe that even those who support the thrust of such an amendment accept that there is probably a need and a desire to go beyond the current public interest immunity provisions to allay those concerns.
	We believe that the amendment is deficient because the way in which the provision could be operated in the cases at which it is aimed—terrorism and serious crime—without falling foul of the European convention on human rights is far from clear. It is argued that the proposal is "permissive" and that we do not have to use it, but that is no excuse for bad legislation, especially when it fundamentally undermines the existing regime and the "equality of arms" principle that underpins it. That would undermine our ability to protect what we do.
	Successive Governments have wrestled with how to ensure that a legal model could be simultaneously fair to the defendant, robust in the protection of sensitive material and practical enough to operate without diverting vital front-line security resources into servicing disproportionate administrative requirements. The Government's position is well established. We support changing the law to permit intercept as evidence—but only if the necessary safeguards can be put in place and the potential benefits outweigh the risks. However, experience so far during the Bill's passage has taught us that we need to be more open in our determination to find a workable solution.
	Two years ago, when a substantive review previously took place—I appreciate that, even then, the world was slightly different in terms of terrorism—it was believed that there were no cases of serious crime or terrorism whose outcome would have been affected by the use of intercept as evidence. It is right and proper to make progress on that work. I believe that it is right and proper to work the matter through to a conclusion. We have therefore agreed to set up an independent review of the subject on Privy Councillor terms. Not only are we convinced that the politicians should come together on matters of national security, but we want to ensure that we work together to solve the difficulties of that highly complex matter, and not try to pretend that they do not exist.
	We are sure that the use of intercept as evidence, as suggested by Lord Lloyd's amendment in another place, is unworkable and deficient and we will try to get the relevant provision thrown out in Committee. We are not offering a Privy Council review in the context of the autumn's proposed terrorism Bill as a ruse simply to get through the Committee stage of the measure that we are considering. However, the Lloyd amendment is substantially lacking in thought and rigour in offering a way forward for intercept as evidence. We hope that that view commands the support of the House.
	The two main parties are conducting work on the matter as we speak. I am not entirely sure of the extent to which the Liberal Democrats have been drawn into that partner process; we have engaged with them up to now. I hope that we can reach a position whereby progress can be made on the matter or it can be set aside, whatever the review's conclusion and the Government's response to it, rather than tackling it in a slipshod and deficient manner in the Bill.
	I therefore hope that, when we debate the current amendment, we can agree that that is not the way forward. By the time the issue returns to the House, we will all be better informed by the outcome of the review. We are trying to take things forward through announcements on the review, as in last week's announcement, and I suspect that that will happen before the Bill goes into Committee, let alone its Report stage.

Nick Herbert: The whole House will acknowledge the need to deal with serious crime, the economic and social costs of which are estimated to be between £20 billion and £40 billion a year. The assets derived from crime represent about 2 per cent. of the UK's gross domestic product. Let us not forget the human suffering caused by the violence and fear that organised crime breeds. These are not victimless crimes; the fact that the abuse of class A drugs is estimated to cost £13 billion a year is evidence of that.
	The question is whether the Bill will be effective in dealing with these problems. We must ask why there is another Home Office Bill and how thought through it is. It is only two years since the passing of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. It has been pointed out that the Government are focusing on legislative solutions. The Home Office has introduced 62 pieces of legislation since 1997, including six Bills in the most recent Queen's Speech, not all of which we have seen. Twenty-three of those pieces of legislation have subsequently been repealed, either wholly or in part. In the same period, more than 3,000 new offences have been created, 430 of them by the Home Office. The creation of 3,000 new offences works out at a new offence for almost every day that Labour has been in power, and it is twice the rate seen under the two previous Conservative Administrations. The Government have not yet worked out that the effectiveness of the law enforcement agencies and police forces is at least as important as the legislation that they seek to pass, often in haste. When legislation is necessary, however, it is important that it should be proportionate and effective. That is the yardstick against which we will judge the Bill.
	Part 1 of the Bill immediately gives us a problem in that regard. The Government tell us that the proposed serious crime prevention orders are aimed at the Mr. Bigs—the 400 major crime bosses in the UK who have amassed a criminal wealth of approximately £440 million. The orders are a new type of civil order, similar to antisocial behaviour orders. Indeed, they have been nicknamed "gangster ASBOs" or "GASBOs". They will be made by the High Court, which could impose a broad range of prohibitions, restrictions or requirements on an individual or business. They could last for up to five years, and could be renewed indefinitely. Breach of an order would be a criminal offence carrying a sentence of up to five years' imprisonment. They appear to be a hybrid of control orders and ASBOs. As such, they are hardly likely to recommend themselves to Conservative Members.
	We have two principal concerns about the proposals. First, how effective will they be? After all, we know that more than half of all ASBOs are breached. Some 35 per cent. are breached more than five times and 79 per cent. of those who receive them have previous convictions. The Youth Justice Board report described ASBOs as being worn by youths like a
	"'badge of honour', rather than addressing the causes of"
	bad behaviour.
	Most seriously, MORI research shows a lack of public confidence in ASBOs. An Ipsos MORI poll published in June last year, six months after the launch of the respect action plan, found that nearly half the public do not think that ASBOs are effective in stopping antisocial behaviour. Nearly a third of people subject to control orders have absconded. Since the beginning of 2006, 19 people have been subject to control orders, six of whom have absconded and all of whom remain at large. Given the record of ASBOs and control orders, we view the prospect of a new fusion of the two with a certain amount of concern about their effectiveness.
	Our second concern is about the underlying principles governing the orders. They are predicated on the notion that at some future point in time, a person will commit an unspecified criminal offence and needs to be prevented from doing so. Hon. Members might have seen the film "Minority Report", in which the system of punishing someone with imprisonment after a crime has been committed has been replaced with pre-crime, which operates before a crime takes place in an attempt to prevent it from happening. It is no longer fanciful to say that that concept of pre-crime is being introduced into our legal system today. The only difference is that Tom Cruise relied on mutants who foresaw the future, whereas the Minister and his proposals will rely on hearsay evidence to back up the new gangster ASBOs.

Nick Herbert: Quite clearly, the Minister was seeking to dismiss the comments of the assistant commissioner, who told the Home Affairs Committee that he had changed his view and concluded that the time had come to review the use of intercept evidence.
	The assistant commissioner also helped to knock down a number of the other arguments against the use of intercept evidence. Another common one is that it would impose an undue burden on the police and intelligence agencies. The assistant commissioner said that this was
	"a fairly moot point now, given that you can be very selective about the things you are going to transcribe if you are very precise on your investigation and focused."
	The fact is that the arguments for using intercept evidence are increasingly accepted by a large range of people, including the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and even the Government's terrorism adviser Lord Carlile, who has accepted that the issue needs to be reviewed.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Andy Hayman concluded by saying that the fact that we did not allow the use of intercept evidence made us
	"look a little bit foolish that everywhere else in the world was using it to good effect."
	His views on the matter were quite clear.
	As I mentioned, almost every other major country uses intercept evidence to some effect. In the United States, it is used in nearly all counter-terrorism and organised crime prosecutions and is often the decisive evidence in relation to prosecutions.
	The Government have not had a coherent view on this issue. In his statement on control orders last month, the Home Secretary said that the Government had been looking at allowing the use of intercept evidence in court for a considerable time but that
	"both Opposition Front-Bench teams know that the disadvantages so far outweigh the advantages that what they are suggesting meets with complete opposition from our security and intelligence services. They are the front line, charged with the national security of this country. Consistently, time after time, they have made it clear...that they are opposed to that approach."—[ Official Report, 24 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 1432.]
	The Chancellor, however, has recently briefed journalists that he favours the use of intercept evidence. Judging by the Minister's comments—and his remarks from a sedentary position—I wonder how open minded the review that the Prime Minister has conceded following the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) will be about the use of such evidence. Therefore, we must examine the premise of the review.
	We are grateful that the Government have now accepted the proposal on Privy Council terms. The committee of Privy Councillors that looks at this issue should be a cross-party committee and it should be balanced—there should be no overall control by one party. No one serving in Government should be on the committee; its members should be Privy Councillors with expertise in the issue. The committee must report well before November, in advance of First Reading of the new counter-terrorism Bill, to allow time for provisions to be incorporated in it, if necessary. Crucially, there must be a presumption that the Government will accept the recommendations the committee makes once it has examined all the evidence and arguments and taken account of any concerns that those in the intelligence services might continue to have. If the committee finds that the use of intercept evidence is necessary, the Government should accept that. We want to be sure that the Prime Minister, having accepted the proposal, will set up a committee that looks objectively at the evidence. That is why I view the Minister's remarks and the Home Secretary's previous remarks on this issue with some concern.
	In view of that, we should not give up the provisions on the use of intercept evidence that Lord Lloyd added in Committee. We need at the very least to have reassurances on how the Privy Council examination of the use of intercept evidence will be conducted and its terms of reference before we can allow the view of the other place to be overturned.

Tony McNulty: It is my understanding that discussions between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are continuing and that matters such as those raised by the hon. Gentleman will be resolved, at least in outline, by the time we are in Committee. If that is not the case, I will write to the hon. Gentleman to make that clear. However, I am sure that discussions are ongoing, and that they address precisely the matters the hon. Gentleman mentions such as the committee's composition. It is right and proper that such issues are cleared up before the Committee stage, although how the hon. Gentleman approaches particular clauses in Committee is up to him. I am just trying to be helpful, as ever.

Nick Herbert: That was not the view of the Joint Committee. I am open-minded about whether the Government can reassure us that that provision will prevent fishing. Our concern is to ensure that fishing is not allowed. The provisions should be able to be used only to identify existing patterns of criminal activity. We will examine those detailed issues in Committee.
	We understand the purpose of the provisions and their potential value, but the human rights considerations are serious and need to be addressed, not least because clause 66 suggests that not only relatively innocuous personal data, but sensitive data could be shared. That includes information on racial or ethnic origins, political opinions, religious beliefs, physical or mental health and sexual life. Indeed, the Bill specifically amends the data protection legislation to achieve that widened definition of data that may be shared. What is the justification for widening the definition to include sensitive personal data that does not immediately appear to relate to fraudulent activity? We will seek reassurances from the Government on those points and, if necessary, amendments to the Bill. The Minister may be able to give us those reassurances when he winds up or, more likely, when we examine the detail of the Bill in Committee.
	We are mindful of the Information Commissioner's warning that we are sleepwalking into a surveillance society. The House has to be careful before passing wide ranging powers that could allow considerable intrusion into people's private lives and the data that are held on them in breach of the principle of the data protection legislation. It is right that we should consider these proposals very carefully.
	Chapter 2 of part 3 relates to the proceeds of crime and the abolition of the Assets Recovery Agency. As an example of the Government's legislative frenzy, the ARA was set up only in 2002 and has since been subject to various changes through legislation. Five years later, it is to be abolished, but that is perhaps not surprising given the National Audit Office's report in February, which pointed out that the ARA had recovered £23 million against costs of £65 million. The Minister will have to explain how simply dismantling the agency and reconstituting it within SOCA will make it more effective. The deckchairs are often moved around the deck of a sinking ship, but we want to know how the proposals will improve performance in assets recovery. We will also seek reassurances about the effect on Northern Ireland, where the agency has been more successful and is valued by the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
	We have cause to be concerned about the placing of the ARA into SOCA. The former has been in operation for just over a year and we are concerned about its accountability. It has a budget of nearly £400 million, capital funding of £43 million and 4,500 full-time equivalent staff. However, the House has had no opportunity to debate the effectiveness of the agency since it was established or since it has reported. The ARA is meant to be accountable to Parliament.
	I concede that it is too early to assess SOCA's effectiveness properly, and that we can take some positives from its first annual report, such as the volume of drugs that it has seized and the stronger international co-operation that it has fostered. Concerns remain, however: the agency has prosecuted fewer cases in the UK courts than its predecessor, and it has missed its targets for seizing criminal assets. Reportedly, it has suffered from poor morale, too much bureaucracy and staff problems. Questions have been asked about its cost-effectiveness too as, so far, it has achieved fewer convictions of organised criminals than its precursor, even though it has more than twice the budget.
	Perhaps SOCA can answer all those questions, but it is very important that the House has an opportunity to assess its effectiveness, especially before we accept a proposal to place within it the already not very successful ARA. We shall have to look at all those matters more closely as the Bill makes its way through the House.
	Finally, clause 78—part 3, chapter 4—provides a new power to seal off an area and search it for firearms. The Minister said that this was another measure that had been imposed on the Government against their will, but it is pretty rich of the Government to say that ACPO did not ask for it. The Minister told us that ACPO had said that the power was unnecessary, but what about the idea for a new stop-and-question power that he floated in the press? It was dropped unceremoniously a few weeks later, but did the Government take ACPO's view into account then? No, of course not. The Government are happy to pray in aid ACPO's opinion when it suits them, but they are equally happy to float a proposal and gain a good headline without even having the courtesy to talk to ACPO beforehand.
	We need to examine the new power on its merits. The Minister described it as a "reckless" provision, but we will have the opportunity in Committee to hear his explanation of why he believes that the existing powers are sufficient, and to look at the issue in a rather more sober manner.
	The Bill is typical of the Government's piecemeal approach to dealing with crime. The promised Criminal Justice Bill has not yet emerged, even though  The Sunday Times promised us in January that it was to be the Prime Minister's final assault on Britain's thug culture. We have had a series of Home Office Bills that have been badly thought through and incomplete, when what we need is more effective action by the agencies concerned, and more thought about the proposals brought before the House.
	Despite the scrutiny of the Bill undertaken in another place, some serious questions remain, such as the implications for civil liberties of data sharing and the justification for, and the reach of, the serious crime prevention orders. In addition, we will need to debate the use of intercept evidence until we can be sure that the Privy Council committee is looking at the matter.
	Those are all issues on which the Opposition want reassurance. We understand the purpose of the Bill and share its aims, so we shall not divide the House, but we reserve our position on crucial issues, especially those relating to civil liberties. The Bill's progress will depend on what the Government have to say to us in Committee and on Report.

Geoffrey Cox: I do not say that, in itself, such a provision is not right. However, we must ask ourselves whether we have cumulatively reached the point at which so many of the consequences of a conviction are imposed on an individual without trial that we are essentially bypassing the due process that has been achieved through hundreds of years of sacrifice, effort and often blood by our ancestors.
	The consequences of the Bill for the individual involve the seizure of his property and the stigma of guilt, because on this sort of evidence he would have to be found liable—and finding someone liable means that he would have to be found liable for having committed serious crimes. On the back of that finding by the judge, presumably on written evidence alone, the individual might be able to make representations, but he would not be able to call a fully fledged trial or give his own evidence in oral testimony, as no provision appears to exist for that.
	The individual would be liable to have his liberty restricted in ways unprecedented in common law. The provisions—these are only non-exhaustive examples—allow the court to make an order placing prohibitions and restrictions and all sorts of requirements on his holding of property; his business dealings; his enjoyment of his property; his working arrangements and even the way he communicates with his associates; on the premises to which he has access; on where he lives and on his travel. Short of imprisoning him, what more on earth could be done to restrict liberty without the evidence on which convictions would ordinarily follow, but merely on the balance of probabilities?
	With the greatest of respect to the Minister, this Bill imposes on an individual almost all of the consequences of a conviction, short of imprisonment. It allows the judge to say where the individual should live, who he should meet, with whom he should communicate, where he should work and what he should do. Where is the difference in fundamentals—save for the iron bars placed across the window—between that and imprisonment? What procedure will be adopted for that? Affidavits will be submitted in secret to a judge, often on information that would never be seen in a criminal court, and based on flimsy second or even third-hand hearsay.
	It is not surprising that we should become aware of the voices whom the Government so often treat with disdain and contempt—the "shenanigans" of defence lawyers was how they were referred to by the Minister for Security, Counter Terrorism and Police, but I refer to them voices of liberty and justice—and to the voices of the Law Society and the Bar Council. All those voices are raised in protest, concern and anxiety about a Bill that would remove fundamental principles from our public life. Of course they are concerned—if we place a weapon of that nature in the hands of the Executive, its power will inevitably be used in circumstances not contemplated by us. We will have no control over it. We will have no say in how it is implemented. It will be handed to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of Revenue and Customs and the director of the Serious Fraud Office and they will decide who is targeted as the subject of these applications.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) referred from the Front Bench to the Government's intention to ensure that the legislation hits only those describable as "Mr. Big", but that is not so. Let us look at the 2006 consultation paper, which makes it as clear as a bell that the Government view this as an alternative to prosecution. I ask the Minister either now or in his summing up to clarify the circumstances in which such a power will be used.
	Let us analyse some of the circumstances envisaged in the consultation paper:
	"circumstances in which civil orders could play a role where prosecution is not feasible, alongside prosecution or as an alternative to prosecution."
	It provided examples, referring to
	"significant numbers of individuals at the fringes who cannot be pursued in the main trial, and for whom a separate trial is not thought worthwhile."
	What we are contemplating is the use of those draconian powers to restrict people's liberty without any admissible evidence, simply because of the expense and inconvenience of bringing them to trial. That is what the consultation paper says. It refers to "case management reasons" for objecting to "over-large trials", saying that it might be preferable to deal with those who are marginally involved by bringing one of these orders rather than prosecuting to trial.
	I ask right hon. and hon. Members to reflect for a moment on the significance of that proposition. No longer does evidence have to be brought. No longer do the hard graft of investigation, the assembling of case and its bringing to court have to be gone through. All that is necessary is to pop along to a High Court judge on the strength of a number of affidavits and get an order against someone. The consequence is that the inconvenience and tedium of bringing through to a trial and persuading 12 ordinary people in a jury box that a man is guilty can simply be circumvented by that device. A man can be virtually imprisoned, his assets stripped, his name and reputation taken away, yet there is no need to bring him to trial.
	We are not talking about Mr. Bigs. These are people described in the words of the Government's own consultation paper as "essentially peripheral players" who might
	"step up to leadership in the organised crime group".
	On that basis, although they are peripheral an order will be made against them. In my respectful and urgent submission, the House needs to reflect very carefully about whether, if they truly are peripheral players, so heavy and blunt an instrument should be placed in the hands of the Executive on so slender a basis.
	What did the consultation paper say about the Mr. Bigs? It was suggested that they might be subjected to these orders where there is sufficient evidence to justify an order to a civil standard, but insufficient for a conviction. That goes directly against what the Minister for Security, Counter Terrorism and Police told us in opening the debate today—that in essence the burden or standard of proof would be the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. If that is right, what is the need for the provision? If it has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, that is essentially recreating a criminal trial in a civil court. Of course, the consultation paper did not say that and nobody really believes—not even, I suspect, the Minister—that the criminal standard of proof can conceivably apply in those circumstances. It will be a civil standard of proof and merely a question of probabilities, not of reasonable certainties. What does the consultation paper say about that? It explains why a Mr. Big, instead of being prosecuted, properly convicted and sentenced by a judge, should simply be subject to this summary-type of procedure based on written evidence and no trial. It says that it can be justified because of the quantity of the evidence or because some of it is in a form not admissible in criminal proceedings, but that can be used in civil cases—namely, hearsay.
	It was argued earlier that, since the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the admissibility of hearsay in a criminal trial has now become so relaxed that there is in fact not a very significant difference between genuinely probative hearsay and its admissibility in a criminal trial, and genuinely probative hearsay and its admissibility in a civil trial. Be that as it may, what the consultation paper is essentially saying is, "We don't have the evidence against this person. We can't prove that they are involved in serious crime. We haven't got the necessary foundation to deprive this man of his liberty, to strip him of his assets, to take away his good name and to impose restrictions on him that would have a substantial effect on his family." The orders in the Bill would have just such effects.
	Let us make no bones about this: the House is being asked to accept that a truncated, abbreviated kangaroo procedure should be adopted to visit upon an individual the consequences of a conviction because the state does not have sufficient evidence to convict him. I ask Members on both sides of the House to reflect on whether we ought to admit that as a principle in this House. It is in this House that so much sweat, toil and effort has been put into the cause of freedom and liberty. Should we, on a quiet Tuesday afternoon, allow so fundamental a principle to pass without at least a voice of protest being raised or critical and constructive opposition being mounted? Our ancestors would have gone to the stake before permitting the Executive to restrict an individual's liberty in this draconian way.
	Let us look at some of the other bases on which an order could be made. In another place, Baroness Scotland outlined the circumstances in which a manufacturer or business man was making items that could facilitate crime. She gave as an example the production of cargo storage containers with false bottoms, saying that such equipment would plainly be manufactured with little else in mind but a criminal purpose. The orders might therefore be used to prevent such items being manufactured. We might also think of those who manufacture speed camera detection equipment. Those are machines that people have in their cars to tell them when they are approaching a speed camera. I do not have one; I do not know whether the Minister does.

Geoffrey Cox: The Minister is shaking his head, so we can all rejoice at that.
	It is lawful to produce that type of equipment—it is not a criminal offence—yet the manufacturer could be the subject of one of these orders. I ask the House to reflect on that. Producing such items is a perfectly lawful, admissible activity, but the House is being asked to make it unlawful through legislation, rather than a proper criminal offence being brought on the basis of aiding and abetting—or, under this Bill, assisting and encouraging. Such people would be eminently chargeable under the new provisions with assisting and encouraging an offence, and one of those orders would be made. That would criminalise lawful conduct without reference to the House. It would visit upon the individual the consequences of a conviction and of engaging in unlawful activity without having made the activity unlawful.
	The Minister's opening speech was conspicuous for its paucity of justification for the orders, other than bland platitudes about the gravity of organised crime, with which I completely agree. Every time we look at the specific justifications for the use of these orders as set out in the consultation paper, they melt under scrutiny. The consultation paper also invites us to accept, as a basis for passing the Bill, that orders could be an
	"additional option in the run up to a criminal prosecution".
	Let us analyse that one, if we may. Let us imagine that the Serious Fraud Office, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Serious Organised Crime Agency had a potential criminal under investigation. It would investigate him in the normal ways open to it, no doubt including surveillance, covert interception and all the other paraphernalia available to the law enforcement authorities. Under the proposals, the Director of Public Prosecutions, for example, could pop along to a High Court judge and say, "Now look, we're investigating this chap." The judge would say, "Well, haven't you got to serve a notice on the person you're investigating?" The director would have to say, "Yes, the Act requires it." He would be faced with the bizarre situation of having to tell the serious criminal that he was investigating him, because he would have to seek an order in the High Court and serve notice on the criminal to prevent him from engaging in any further activity.
	I ask the House to reflect on whether those two things are compatible. If we are seeking a civil order restricting a person's liberty and stripping him of his rights as a free individual, we are inherently telling him that we are investigating him and that he is a target of a law enforcement agency. There would then be no point in getting one of these civil orders, unless the evidence was already in the bag—in which case, why not just prosecute him?
	I hope that the Minister will clarify that point. I find it hard to understand how such an order could be a useful
	"additional option in the run up to a criminal prosecution, imposed to restrict the harm the subject can do while the case is being prepared".
	It is a long time since I was in a magistrates court, but I recollect that magistrates have pretty wide powers on bail. If there were a real fear of the subject reoffending, the magistrate would be under a duty to put him in the nick. It is one of the bases of the Bail Act 1976 that if there is a real perceived risk of someone reoffending, or of continuing to offend, he should be imprisoned. He should not be on the outside with an expensive civil order being sought from a High Court judge. I do not understand that, and I ask the Minister to clear up my confusion. If an order is to be imposed to
	"restrict the harm the subject can do while the case is being prepared, in cases where the subject is aware of law enforcement interest already",
	what is wrong with bail, with the conditions attachable to bail or with the fundamental power of the court to withdraw bail if there is a risk of reoffending?
	I find it almost impossible to understand where this power will fit in. If it is not obvious straight away that it is vital to the fight against crime, I ask the House to reflect on whether we should be giving it to the Executive at all. If it is so hard to discern the basis on which the orders will be made, and exactly where the provisions will fit into the criminal justice system, why are we taking a step that is fraught with such grave consequences to the principles of liberty for which the House has always stood? Is it surprising that people in the judiciary and the wider society are saying that they can no longer trust the House of Commons to stand up for their liberties, and that that must be done by the judiciary? That argument is always used to justify the power of judges to take away from the House its role as the vigilant defender of human rights and liberties. I respectfully submit that we must exercise the greatest of care over such an important issue of trust.
	It is not only the Bill itself that gives me concern, but the place that it occupies in a growing trend that the Government have evinced for a number of years. Others have spoken about the avalanche of legislation that has overwhelmed our criminal justice system. That is a true observation. Speaking for myself, I have never seen such a tide of legislation exposed to such withering criticism in the courts, and some of it has not even been brought into force, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) mentioned. We had 340 sections and 37 schedules to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and 179 sections and 17 schedules to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Now, we have the Serious Crime Bill, with 85 clauses and 15 schedules. Some countries whole criminal codes have fewer provisions than that.

Edward Garnier: Possibly that, too. Perhaps Labour Back Benchers have legislation fatigue. I mentioned in an intervention that 34 Home Office Bills had been repealed, repealed in part or not fully implemented. That is bad enough, but let us consider the sort of Bills they are. I am not going to recite all of the 34 out of the 64 Bills for which the Home Office has been responsible since 1997, but I will give just a few examples. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 contains 43 sections and two schedules that have been repealed in whole or in part. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 contains 15 sections and one schedule that have been repealed in whole or in part. Half a dozen of its sections and schedules are not yet in force, and it was passed seven years ago. The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 has 21 sections and two schedules that have been repealed in whole or in part, and an equivalent number of sections from the Police Reform Act 2002 have not been brought into effect or have been repealed in whole or in part. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, about which my hon. and learned Friend and I had a brief discussion, contains four sections and two schedules that have been repealed in whole or in part, and approximately 50 sections and 17 schedules that are not in force.
	What is the point of the Government's coming to the House to tell us that legislation is essential to the public good, ramming it through and not allowing Public Bill Committees to discuss it? Bills are guillotined, the work has to be done in the other place, and in the end the legislation does not come into force.
	I shall speak briefly about part 1, although the brevity of my remarks should not be interpreted as a sign of any lack of enthusiasm for my arguments. What we are discussing is a form of civil injunction to prevent a crime. It seems that things have changed, but I was always taught that it was not possible to obtain an injunction from a High Court judge to prevent an anticipated crime, because the criminal law was sufficient injunction in itself. That was the deterrent: that was the way in which our behaviour was regulated in relation to criminal activity. It would not be possible to go to court and say to the judge "I want an injunction to prevent the defendant, or respondent, from committing an anticipated burglary, an anticipated murder, or some other anticipated crime." The judge would simply say "The law is on the statute book. Common law already exists. That will do."
	Equally, I was always led to believe that the criminal law was not part of contractual law. A person could not commit a crime on the understanding that he could do it as long as he paid the fine or did the time; the criminal law did not work in that way. Now, however, we are watching the Government quietly—I say quietly because no Labour Back Benchers are here to listen to this, or to listen to the Government's justification of their intention—move huge chunks of criminal law and procedure into the civil jurisdiction.
	As my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, the consequences of such action will not be slight. I fully understand the political reasons for it: it must be cheaper, I presume it must be quicker, and it must be assumed that it will have some deterrent effect. Nevertheless, as my hon. and learned Friend said, it will have deleterious and damaging consequences for our constitution and the balance between the state and the individual, and I find that somewhat worrying.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs was entirely right to give the Bill only a conditional welcome. The fact that we will not divide the House this evening does not mean that aspects of the Bill—this aspect in particular, I hope—will not receive the closest examination in Committee. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) are nodding in assent.
	We must be extremely careful. As I have said, we are providing for a form of injunction against crime when the criminal law already exists. I do not suggest that that is a wholly novel concept—people are bound over in the courts not to commit offences, and we have observed the somewhat troubled system of control orders, so the wall has been breached to some extent—but this is a mighty step, and a huge leap over that wall.

Edward Garnier: for the purposes of my argument, I think I must accept that the principle against which I am arguing has been breached to some extent. The hon. Gentleman is right, however: the quality of the breach is entirely different in the case of bindovers.
	I am deeply concerned by clause 1(3), which permits the court or the applicant a very wide ambit. It states:
	"An order under this section may contain—
	(a) such prohibitions, restrictions or requirements; and
	(b) such other terms;
	as the court considers appropriate for the purpose of protecting the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the person concerned in serious crime in England and Wales or (as the case may be) Northern Ireland."
	Clause 2(1) states:
	"For the purposes of this Part, a person has been involved in serious crime in England and Wales if he—
	(a) has committed a serious offence in England and Wales;
	(b) has facilitated the commission by another person of a serious offence in England and Wales; or
	(c) has conducted himself in a way that was likely to facilitate the commission by himself or another person of a serious offence in England and Wales (whether or not such an offence was committed).
	The court need not have within its grasp evidence that a serious criminal offence has been committed; it need merely be persuaded that it is likely to be committed. A facilitator, however, is quite likely to be caught by the clause, even if he did not know about the offence and even if he did not intend to facilitate its commission.
	Clause 5(2) states:
	"In deciding for the purposes of this Part whether a person...facilitates the commission by another person of a serious offence, the court must ignore...his intentions, or any other aspect of his mental state, at the time."
	I accept that there are absolute offences, but it seems to be that a serious criminal offence, or the facilitation of a serious criminal offence, ought at least to be in the mind of the respondent to the application. Otherwise he could well be penalised—subjected to a five-year term of imprisonment—despite his innocence. Five years is a long time for breaching an injunction. Even the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides for a limit of two years for that form of breach, and I think that my hon. Friends will need to examine that provision very carefully in Committee.
	We had a degree of fun over the definition of "serious crime" I think that most people could understand the concept without its having to be defined in a schedule, but at least there is a definition in the Bill for the benefit of those who are likely to be caught, those who may wish to make applications, and Members of Parliament who may come upon  Hansard by accident and read the speeches of those who spoke before me.
	Part 1 of schedule 1 defines serious offences as drug trafficking, people trafficking, arms trafficking, prostitution and child sex, money laundering, fraud, corruption and bribery, counterfeiting, blackmail, and offences relating to intellectual property—the hon. Member for Taunton had some fun with those—and the environment. It seems to me at least possible that the Minister for Security, Counter Terrorism and Police, who introduced the Bill, has not read the underlying legislation to which the schedule refers. The clue is that the Minister tends to resort to abuse rather than argument when faced with a difficult question. I am not suggesting that we are discussing the possibility of people being caught by prevention orders for fishing with a spinner during the fly season, but I do think the Minister ought to come here with his work done before trying to explain what the Bill is about. I doubt very much that he has any idea what it is about.
	The Minister chided me, telling me that I ought to get out more. I would get out more if I were not having to keep the Government under a watchful eye, but there are some interesting gaps in the schedule. For instance, homicide, grievous bodily harm, offences of robbery and indeed terrorist offences are not included in part 1 of the schedule. Perhaps the Government let them slip. I worry that the Ministers in charge of this Bill have not been giving it their proper attention.
	One other issue about which the House ought to be concerned is clause 5(4), which yet again provides an example of this Government requiring this Parliament to give this Government Executive powers to amend the criminal law without resort to Parliament. Clause 5(4) says, in the most disarming way:
	"The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1."
	I really do not think it appropriate to allow any Home Secretary—certainly not the catalogue of Home Secretaries we have had to put up with since 1997—to get anywhere near amending any Act of Parliament by expanding, or even reducing, the list of criminal offences that are affected by the Bill without proper parliamentary scrutiny on the Floor of the House; not tucked away in some Committee Room upstairs but down here where all of us can scrutinise it. If one wants to change the principles or detail of primary criminal law, one should do it by primary legislation.
	What will these orders be able to cover? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon has been through those. These are fundamental restrictions on liberty, on where you can work, to whom you can talk, where you can go, who you can meet, what you can do with your money and matters of that nature. They apply to individuals, to partnerships, to unincorporated associations and to corporations. Most extraordinarily, we have these examples, which as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, are merely examples of requirements that may be imposed:
	"a requirement on a person to answer questions, or provide information, specified or described in an order...at a time, within a period or at a frequency...at a place...in a form and manner; and...to a law enforcement officer or description of law enforcement officer...notified to the person by a law enforcement officer specified or described in the order."
	It would be amusing, were it not so serious; even when serving the order, the authorities are entitled to break into your house to see if you are there to receive it. It strikes me as deeply worrying and concerning that the Government thought it appropriate to pass such legislation without more ado.
	I will not delay the passage of the Bill this evening; I simply cannot. But I urge all of us—I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are aware of this—to study the implications of the Bill, to think hard about the consequences of its passage, to test some of these ideas, to destruction if necessary, in Committee and to permit only what is necessary and only what can be justified to the public to become part of our criminal law.
	The Minister said that it is a civil procedure or a civil matter; I have also heard the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), say that from a sedentary position. It is not a civil matter, except by description from the Government. In terms of the European convention on human rights, which the Government have domesticated into our jurisdiction and jurisprudence, we are talking about the imposition of savage penalties—five-year prison sentences—for breaching a civil order. That is a penalty in anyone's book. If the Minister thinks that simply by mouthing the word "civil" in front of every piece of criminal procedure or criminal law that he brings into this House, he makes it actually a civil penalty, he is in a greater state of unknowing than I had previously thought that he and his colleagues might be.
	I do not want to use the same sort of language that the Minister used in his speech but, with equal vehemence, I urge the House to be careful.

Elfyn Llwyd: Having heard two very powerful speeches, I can be rather briefer than I intended.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made some telling points and said that he would truncate his remarks after his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) made a powerful speech, which showed a lot of understanding of the procedures that should inform these debates but frequently does not.
	It was unfortunate that in opening the Minister referred to the "shenanigans" of lawyers. I confess to defending and prosecuting asset recovery cases, and I do not recognise the word "shenanigans." It is always unfortunate when Ministers see fit to insult lawyers, and the Minister of State, albeit that he was goaded from this side, concurred with that description. Let us remember that many thousands of people each year are acquitted of offences with which they have been charged; they are innocent people. Without the "shenanigans" of lawyers, heaven knows where they would end up. [ Interruption.] "Even the odd Minister," according to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). I am sure that that was not meant in any way to be personal about the Under-Secretary.
	I was concerned that the Minister stressed that we are not talking about the civil standard of proof—that is to say, on the balance of probability—but about something nearer the criminal standard. He was relying on the case of McCann, in which the House of Lords suggested that, in many cases, there would be a civil standard but that, in some, it might move up to somewhere near the criminal standard. That does not satisfy me at all; even if the learned judges had said that in every case that would be so—I know that they were talking about a previous Bill, but the issue is the same—I would not be at all persuaded. Who decides to apply something nearer the criminal standard? When does that kick in? When is it appropriate to rely only on the civil standard? These are fundamental matters, especially when one deals with the draconian measures that may be introduced in lieu of these orders.
	The Minister says that the civil standard of proof certainly will not apply. Clause 34 says:
	"Proceedings before the High Court in relation to serious crime prevention orders are civil proceedings...One consequence of this is that the standard of proof to be applied by the court in such proceedings is the civil standard of proof."
	Clause 35, "Proceedings in the Crown Court", says the same:
	"Proceedings before the Crown Court arising by virtue of section 20, 21 or 22 are civil proceedings...One consequence of this is that standard of proof to be applied by the court in such proceedings is the civil standard of proof."
	The Minister, in what can only be said to have been rather intemperate language, said this, that and the next thing about organisations such as Liberty, which has said that the Government have got it wrong. When one reads the Bill, one cannot conclude otherwise. The only thing on which the Minister could fall back was to blurt out the McCann case; McCann says that the standard of proof could be the civil standard or almost, maybe, at times, something approaching the criminal standard. That is no good at all. Liberty is right in what it says, and I do not accept what the Minister says at all.
	Everybody in this House is keen to make sure that we stem the rise of organised crime. Nobody would argue against that being a priority, but we must not throw away our civil protection—the protection that has been woven into the judicial process over many centuries—in an urgent rush to do something about organised crime.
	This Government introduced antisocial behaviour orders, and they want to limit the right to jury trial and spend less on legal aid. We find the same steps being taken in every area we consider. I served on the Committee that considered the civil contingencies legislation. It is difficult to believe, but it is true, that a Government Whip can decide to declare an emergency. A Government Whip can also decide not to enter someone's house to look for evidence, but to knock their house down, and the householder does not have a right to sue for damages. That is in the Bill. That might be thought of as small potatoes when compared with some other measures, but it does not make me feel any better.
	There is a consistent drift—a constant attack on civil liberties and on the judicial process. The fact that the Minister prays in aid the thoughts of the judiciary in the McCann case shows that the Government are on the ropes. There is a certain frisson in the relationship between the Government and the judiciary at present, so it appears that the Minister was clutching at straws in trying to justify the Bill.
	I am unhappy with the Bill. There are many examples of what might happen to people. It is unacceptable to condemn a person to house arrest without their having the opportunity to be tried properly on the accusation giving rise to the order. There are also restrictions on travel, on the use of a private dwelling, and on meeting and making arrangements with associates. All such restrictions are perfectly proper if a proper degree of proof has been established through the courts, but without that they are utterly unacceptable as they then amount almost to house arrest.
	A breach of the conditions can give rise to a five-year prison sentence. Equally insidiously, the order can be renewed indefinitely. We should think about that. Does anyone fancy being under house arrest indefinitely? I would not like that. It is all very well saying that an appeal will lie somewhere or other, but I do not know where it will lie because presumably in the initial event a High Court judge will have imposed the order—and an appeal might well be difficult to mount in any case. These are serious matters. The Bill is rightly called the Serious Crime Bill—it jolly well is a serious crime Bill from my point of view.
	Why does Parliament have a Joint Committee on Human Rights? On 25 April, the Committee reported serious misgivings about the serious crime prevention orders in part 1 of the Bill. It considered that the SCPO provisions raised three significant human rights issues: first,
	"whether SCPOs amount to the determination of a criminal charge for the purposes of the right to a fair trial in Article 6(1) of the"
	European convention on human rights; secondly,
	"whether the standard of proof in proceedings for an SCPO should be the civil or the criminal standard";
	and, thirdly,
	"whether the power to make SCPOs is defined with sufficient precision to satisfy the requirement that interferences with Convention rights should be 'in accordance with the law' or 'prescribed by law'".
	The Committee also says in its report:
	"The Government argues that SCPOs do not involve the determination of a criminal charge and therefore do not attract the full panoply of fair trial protections contained in Article 6".
	The Committee strongly disagrees. It goes on to mention that the Bill expressly provides that proceedings for those orders are civil proceedings and the standard of proof to be applied is the civil standard. It adds that it follows from the Committee's view
	"that SCPOs amount to the determination of a criminal charge",
	and
	"that the standard of proof should be the criminal standard not the civil standard."
	Reference has been made to McCann, and I shall do not do so again. Suffice it to say that grave concerns are felt by a range of organisations, including the Bar Council, the Law Society, Liberty and Justice. I would not argue with the Government if what they were asking the House to sanction was intended to be imposed after a thorough examination of the evidence, where on a proven basis a person was convicted or found to require this kind of order. I would still be unhappy about the indefinite imposition of those conditions, but I could not reasonably argue about the imposition of an order. However, the measure in its current form is an attack on our criminal justice system. It is an attack on the presumption of innocence, the equality of arms and, crucially, the right to a fair trail before an independent court. Almost every aspect of the system is being attacked.
	I hope that the Government will think again about the orders in Committee. We in this place far too often use the word "draconian".  [Interruption.] The Minister says, "hear, hear." However, in this instance it is fitting and proper for that word to be used. The far-reaching matters I have referred to should be looked at properly, and these orders should not be established in their current form.
	Liberty has sent a full document setting out numerous reasons why it feels strongly about this latest incursion into our basic human rights. All the points it makes are salient, but I shall briefly refer to a couple that have not hitherto been addressed. Liberty is concerned about SCPOs because they are civil orders and they continue the trend of undermining the criminal justice system—the hon. and learned Member for Harborough mentioned that. It is also concerned about the introduction of the SCPO because it avoids
	"the rigour of a criminal trial by using the civil standard of proof".
	Another concern is that:
	"Because breach of the order is a criminal offence, this blurs the boundary between civil and criminal law".
	As a breach is a criminal offence, it
	"can act as a short cut into the Criminal Justice System".
	That is one of the reasons we are discussing this matter. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon eloquently addressed it. There is a cumbersomeness about the criminal justice system in respect of acquiring evidence, putting it before the court, and in proving the case—but so there should be. We are talking about people's reputations and liberty. If we are not careful—cumbersome—about such things, where are we headed? These orders might well be a short cut to get the ultimate result without the necessary standard of proof and the necessary court process. This runs a cart and horses through the Human Rights Act 1998.
	Justice feels strongly, too. It says that the SCPOs
	"should not be used as a substitute for criminal proceedings";
	that they
	"cannot provide sufficient protection for the public in very serious cases";
	that they
	"can be imposed in too wide a range of circumstances, compromising legal certainty";
	and that the
	"controls that can be imposed on the recipient could be so severe as to amount to a criminal penalty; in these circumstances, the civil standard of proof is inappropriate".
	Those worrying remarks were echoed in previous speeches. These people are used to the criminal justice process, and before anyone says that they are lawyers who are special pleading for themselves, I should point out that there is nothing in this for lawyers. This is not special pleading. Rather, we are pleading on behalf of our constituents and, ultimately, for their constitutional rights—the all-important and ancient rights of our citizens, which are being chipped away at in one Bill after another.
	I remember asking the Prime Minister last year how many new crimes had been put on to the statute book. I suggested that while he was thinking about it he might like to leave an aide-mémoire in the Library each week, so that we could be reminded of how many we have created. As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough never goes out, because he is always making sure that he holds this Government to account, even he does not know the exact number, and neither do I. I doubt whether anybody does.  [Interruption.] Indeed—nor do the Government. So it might help us all if we had a decent, honest aide-mémoire each week in the Library.
	On a serious point, the orders in part 1 are insidious and will be dangerous in the wrong hands. I am not overstating the case. I hope that in Committee, the Government will see the good sense in many of the arguments that have been put this evening and previously by concerned organisations. We cannot all be wrong.

Vernon Coaker: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the point that I was making, as I think every other hon. Member appreciates, was that one of the problems of an independent judiciary is that it sometimes makes decisions or interprets the law in a way that he and others find difficult. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon said that centuries of tradition were in danger of being swept away, but all that I was I saying is that people sometimes see centuries of tradition being swept away when they disagree with something that the Government propose. As with all things, we need to reach a compromise.
	I am grateful to everyone for contributing to the debate and will now turn to some of the points that have been made. On serious crime prevention orders, I emphasise the potential usefulness of a flexible measure against those who engage in insidious crimes with intelligence and adaptability. The orders can be made only, as McCann stated, when it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the subject has been involved in serious crime. The conditions contained in the orders will only be preventive, not punitive, and will be entirely in accordance with the European convention on human rights.
	Two categories of points seem to have been made in the debate: those about principle and those about practice. On principle, the main points were about whether the orders would be a means of circumventing the criminal process. One particular point made by Opposition Members was why we would want to prosecute when we can seize assets and impose major restrictions on liberty on the basis of an ex parte hearing. Those who made that point were wrong. It will not be possible to seek these orders on an ex parte basis and the interpretation of the way in which the orders work is a complete misunderstanding of the Government's intention. The orders will not be an easy option to be used in place of criminal prosecution—their purpose is completely different. Prosecution is about punishing previous actions, whereas these orders are about preventing future involvement in serious crime.
	In addition, to assert that the orders are an easy option is to misunderstand and underestimate the role and expertise of the High Court. The applicant authority will have to convince the High Court, to a standard that we expect to be close to beyond reasonable doubt that the proposed subject of an order has been involved in serious crime. That will be no simple task. As we may recognise, High Court judges do not fall over themselves to agree necessarily with the Government's view. The court is a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 and so will only make an order that is reasonable, proportionate and compatible with convention rights.

Geoffrey Cox: The Minister says that the orders will be dealt with on the basis of reasonable doubt, and I have every respect for those who are briefing him. I am sure that they know a great deal. However, the reality is that the consultation document that his Government produced made it clear that one of the main reasons for introducing the orders is that, in some circumstances, they would not be able to acquit themselves of the reasonable doubt standard. In cases in which evidence fell below that standard, there would be a justification for the order. The Minister is making a good speech and I applaud and commend the tenor of it, but, with respect, he cannot have it both ways. If the reasonable standard test is too high, the civil standard of proof will be used, not reasonable doubt.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(7).
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Serious Crime Bill [Lords]:
	 Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	 Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 10th July 2007.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	 Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.— [Steve McCabe.]
	 Question agreed to.

Robert Goodwill: I congratulate the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) on securing the debate. I am surprised at the early closure of business, which gives me the opportunity to deliver a few hastily prepared words—as will no doubt become apparent in the course of my speech.
	I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's points, which reflect the thought he has given to the subject. Thankfully, right hon. and hon. Members to whom I have spoken have a thoughtful and scientifically based perspective on the matter. Sadly, the media all too often try to grab the headlines. The recent Channel 4 so-called documentary—it should perhaps have been classed as fiction—which snatched one scientist who disagreed with the vast majority of the rest and tried to make his opinion appear mainstream does not help the debate out in the country. We need a cross-party approach.
	The hon. Gentleman touched on the subject of mitigation. Politicians in many countries are pinning their hopes on achieving the targets, reducing CO2 in the atmosphere and turning back the clock to overcome the problems that will be visited on this and future generations. I was interested to meet the Danish scientist, Bjørn Lomborg, who says that although he understands that global warming is happening and, linked to that, CO2 is rising in the atmosphere, we should do more to try to reduce the threat that rising sea levels and other associated climatic problems would have on our economy—for example, by not building on flood plains, by making sure that important strategic developments are not sited in areas that could be under threat, and by studying the migration that may well result from changes in climate.
	In Warminster last month I spoke to Ministry of Defence long-term planners, who were considering problems associated with vast numbers of people migrating from north Africa to southern Europe because of climate change and the effects of that on agriculture. Climate change would have beneficial effects on our agriculture and that of the Russian Federation, for example, as the climate warms up.
	The UK has a good story to tell, as I am sure the Minister will say. We are on track to meet our Kyoto targets, not least because of the dash for gas. Our old, dirty coal-fired stations were phased out as the gas stations came in. Germany has met its obligations because of the closure of large sections of heavy industry in east Germany. For the same reason, much of the former Soviet Union is also meeting its obligations, so it is puzzling why the Russian Federation did not sign up sooner to the Kyoto agreement.
	The UK has grasped the nettle of nuclear build, for which I praise the Government: it was a decision that had to be made. Notwithstanding the alternatives, the renewables and all the steps that we can take to reduce the amount of fuel that we burn by making our homes more fuel efficient, driving smaller cars and so on, we must get on with building nuclear power stations, which not only contribute to reductions in CO2, but will improve the United Kingdom's energy security.
	I am sure we all share the goals and objectives of the Climate Change Bill. Targets of a 26 to 32 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2020, and the 60 per cent. target by 2050 to which the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell referred are indeed ambitious. Although the Bill will aim to address that, will the Minister address the concerns that have been raised with me by people who say that this is not justiciable—that the Government cannot control it? The reductions in CO2 are being achieved not by the Government but by heavy industry, consumers, motorists and the rest. Those concerns have been raised during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. Many people think that it will not get off the ground. What would happen if we failed to meet our targets and legal action was taken by Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth? Could it be made to stick in court, given that the emissions are not directly within the Government's control? Yes, the Government can put structures in place and participate in the European emissions trading scheme, but can they be held to account in that respect?
	In a previous life I was a Member of the European Parliament and deputy co-ordinator for the EPP-ED group in the Environment Committee, where we took the European emissions trading scheme issue very seriously. What would happen if, for example, the UK succeeded in developing new clean technologies in the aluminium industry or other metallurgical industries such as steel smelting and the rest? What if we were so successful that such industries were developed here and closed down in other parts of the European Union? Who knows, by 2050 the large complexes in the Donetsk region of Ukraine could be closing because we could do it more efficiently here. UK emissions would therefore increase in terms of our participation in the trading scheme. In other words, we would miss our target but the global situation would improve. That occurred to me immediately. If the UK were to go it alone, would we then be precluded from trading in emissions within Europe, which would increase UK emissions but reduce total EU emissions?
	What would happen when we went to the table for the next stage of EU negotiations in terms of our emissions trading or in a wider international context? The other states would say, "We can't negotiate with you—you're already locked into this." We could not make a trade-off with them that we would be more ambitious if they did not want to go along with us. Are we likely to be in a weaker position in EU and international negotiations?

Robert Goodwill: My former colleague in the European Parliament is absolutely right. In recent years, we have been fortunate in that when there is famine somewhere in the world there are stocks of food to send. What would be the reaction in this country if, faced with famine in Africa, we were told, "Sorry, we don't have any wheat to send because we've turned it all into ethanol and we're burning it in our cars"? We have seen this around the world—not only in Brazil but in the far east where the habitat of the orang-utan is under threat because of oil production to go into biodiesel. Perhaps we should look closer to home for better incentives for biodiesel production. Farmers are crying out for new crops to grow, and that would be a good initiative to catch up with what is going on in other EU countries.
	Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell on putting this subject on to the agenda so that we can kick it around a little bit. I just hope that the Government will not find themselves kicked around when the Climate Change Bill is introduced. Many of us, not only people on the environmental side but lawyers, are seriously concerned about whether it will be made to work. Can the Government legislate on something that is not directly within their control? If it fails and the Government are taken to court and fined, who will pay the fine? Presumably the Government will have to pay the fine to the Treasury, which will then put the money back into the system again. It seems somewhat flawed—or that is the point that has been made to me, anyway.
	I look forward to the Minister's winding-up speech and hope that he will allay my concerns about whether the Bill will fly. If he is worried that it is going to be an absolute minefield, then perhaps the Government should push the marine Bill a little further up the agenda and we could do that first. The marine Bill is very close to my heart, and there is strong support for it on both sides of the House. It does not have the legal and other problems that have been raised by those who, while having the objectives of the Climate Change Bill very much to heart, are concerned about whether it is the right mechanism and whether it will work.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My personal view is that the Liberal Democrat policy document on the subject is convincing, and I shall happily send a copy to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill).
	It is crucial that we meet the short-term markers because that is indicative of our ability to fulfil the longer-term targets. If we do that in the wrong way, with the wrong rate of reduction, we risk increasing the overall volume of CO2 contributed to the atmosphere even if we meet the percentage reduction target in the long term.
	The signs are not good on other fronts. I was privileged to serve on the EU Standing Committee on 30 April, when we debated whether the EU target for 2020 should be 20 per cent. if the EU were acting alone, or 30 per cent. with what was described as "broad participation." That is an upside-down approach. Surely if other countries are not playing their part—or cannot contribute as much, perhaps because, as in the case of China, we have exported our manufacturing industry there and some of our carbon are emissions are actually being emitted in China—we become the equivalent of the man standing on a sinking ship who refuses to bale out faster because someone else is not playing their part. In practice, if other nations are not achieving those carbon reductions, we need to bale out faster.
	The hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell rightly highlighted the Climate Change Bill and the target of 60 per cent. It is difficult to connect the consequences of global warming with the domestic target. However, Sir Nicholas Stern provides us with a pathway. It begins with the degree increase in global warming that we are prepared to tolerate. He makes it clear that some of the consequences are extremely serious at more than 2°. They include:
	"Falling crop yields in many developing regions... Rising number of people at risk from hunger... Significant changes in water availability... Possible onset of collapse of part or all of Amazonian rainforest... Many species face extinction... Rising intensity of storms, forest fires, droughts, flooding and heat waves... Onset of irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet".
	Let us remember that 2° is the target that the G8 plus 5 has failed explicitly to endorse in its communiqué, thanks to the influence of the Bush Administration.
	How does that translate into targets in terms of parts per million? Again, Sir Nicholas helpfully sets out a clear table, in which he takes a range of risk analyses, from the intergovernmental panel on climate change at one end of the scale to the Hadley centre at the other. The risk of exceeding 2° C, relative to pre-industrial levels, is for 450 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, or 38 per cent. according to the IPCC. The Hadley centre says that at 450 parts per million, the risk is as high as 78 per cent. At 550 ppm, even the IPCC says that the risk is 77 per cent.—far more than likely—and the Hadley centre estimates the risk at 99 per cent.—in other words, virtually certain. Even the lowest of those percentages, at 38 per cent., is not a risk that I would like to take crossing the road, let alone risking the future of the planet. It is very clear from the figures in the Stern report that 450 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually the minimum level that we should aim for either at the international level or in terms of UK domestic carbon emissions.
	The Stern report does not make a very clear association between that target and the percentage reduction of CO2 emissions that we need in the Bill. Luckily, however, others have done so. In its response to the publication of the Climate Change Bill, the Tyndall centre said:
	"Tyndall calculated a national carbon budget for 2000-2050 based on an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 450 parts per million by volume...Given actual UK emissions between 2000 and 2006, Tyndall proceeded to describe an emission pathway out to 2050 that stayed within the national carbon budget. The pathway demonstrated that even a 30 per cent. chance of not exceeding the 2° degree threshold required the UK to cut its total carbon emissions by 70 per cent. by 2030 and in the region of 90 per cent. by 2050."
	The Tyndall centre is not alone, as many other commentators have talked about percentages of 80, 85 or 90. That clearly demonstrates that the 60 per cent. target contained in the Bill is utterly inadequate. Indeed, on a previous occasion, I believe that the Minister told the House that the Government were ready to contemplate 70 per cent. If that were true, why could we not have a target at least that high built directly into the Bill?

Ian Pearson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) on securing this Adjournment debate. As is customary, I will respond primarily to him, but I shall take on board and address the comments made by the other hon. Members who have participated.
	This has been another opportunity to highlight the risks from dangerous climate change and the urgency with which we need to tackle it. As we have acknowledged before, climate change is the greatest long-term challenge facing the human race and it is a top priority for this Government. That is why we have consulted on and published our draft Climate Change Bill, and I welcome the commitment of my hon. Friend to its principles and the wide support that it has received in the House and in the country at large.
	We recognise that tackling a global problem effectively requires a global agreement. We therefore very much welcome the significant progress made by the G8 last week. The G8 recognised that a global emissions reduction goal must be agreed, involving all major emitters and taking account of the European goal to halve emissions by 2050. This is the first time that the G8 has announced the need for a goal against which global efforts should now be measured. At the United Nations framework convention on climate change meeting in Bali later this year, we need to launch talks immediately on a post-2012 climate change framework in order to conclude it by 2009. Also, for the first time the US has seriously committed to engaging in discussions on a post-2012 international climate change framework under the UNFCCC, and demonstrated its increased engagement by pledging to host a meeting of major energy consuming and greenhouse gas emitting countries, which will support and add momentum to the UNFCCC process.
	The G8 leaders also discussed the rapidly growing movement towards the global establishment of emission trading schemes—our preferred way of creating a price for carbon—at national and sub-national level, and the importance of sharing experience on emissions trading as a precursor to the future linking of these schemes. As the Stern review highlighted, establishing a carbon price signal across countries and sectors will ensure that emissions reductions are delivered in the most cost-effective way.
	So, despite what some might say, the G8 summit was an important step forward. Without global action or a global commitment to reductions of greenhouse gases, we will have no chance of limiting the global mean temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels—the level considered necessary to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change. That is why this Government have sought to play—and are playing—a key leadership role internationally through our involvement in the UNFCCC and the G8 process, and in particular through the Gleneagles dialogue.

Christopher Huhne: The Minister mentioned the emissions trading scheme. Have the Government been advised on what would be an appropriate price per tonne to aim for, if we are to achieve the kind of reductions necessary in the European Union? A company called Vattenfall has estimated €40 per tonne, and the recent price for 2008 permits was about €23. Do the Government's advisers or the Minister have a view on this matter?

Ian Pearson: I do not want to single out individual countries, but we need to recognise the success of the EU emissions trading scheme in getting a scheme that covers 45 per cent. of Europe's CO2 up and running. One of the key lessons to be learned is that we need to ensure scarcity overall if we are to have a carbon price that sends out the right signals to encourage long-term investment in low-carbon technologies. I am sure that we have all learned that lesson and taken it on board as part of phase 2 of the programme. As part of our review of the directive, we are reflecting also on how we can further improve that post-2012.
	The UK has sought to underpin its international leadership by taking action domestically to tackle climate change. I was a bit surprised by some of what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said. He does not want to recognise the fact that the Government have taken action on tackling climate change. Let me tell him some of the actions that we have taken. The 2000 climate change programme, which was reviewed and revised in 2006, and the 2003 and 2007 energy White Papers included a suite of measures for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and emissions of other greenhouse gases. It is simply not true to say that our performance on reducing greenhouse gas emissions—and the UK has an impressive record as being one of the few countries that will double its Kyoto commitment—is down to the dash for gas. That is plain wrong.

Ian Pearson: We have not met the Kyoto target yet because it is over the period of 2008 to 2012. The effect of the dash for gas might account for at most a third of our reductions in greenhouse gas emissions overall. Our other reductions in greenhouse emissions are a direct result of the Government's actions on encouraging energy efficiency measures that have been taken by industry and the increase in the deployment of nuclear power during the 1990s. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot have it all ways. It simply is not true that all our performance on the Kyoto targets is down to the dash for gas. Nuclear has had a role to play, as has the Government's climate change programme.
	We are forecasting that the UK will reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions by more than 23 per cent. in the period 2008-12 and carbon dioxide emissions by more than 16 per cent. by 2012. I admit that at the moment we are not on course to meet our target for 2010. It is a matter of regret, but we should not ignore the fact that making a 16.2 per cent. reduction, which is the latest projection, by 2012 is a significant commitment and achievement.
	Looking further afield, the measures announced by the Government, including those recently set out in the energy White Paper, should help us to cut carbon dioxide emissions by more than a quarter by 2020, relative to 1990, even though the economy will have doubled in size. We are demonstrating that we can have green growth—that carbon can be taken out of the economy—and at the same time have high and stable levels of employment.
	The debate has focused on the Government's long-term 2050 target for reducing emissions. I want to address that in particular because it is the gravamen of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell. It is worth reminding the House that the Government have for some time recognised the need for a long-term target. That is why they committed themselves in the 2003 energy White Paper to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050, a target recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. There is no obfuscation on where the at least 60 per cent. reduction set out in the Climate Change Bill comes from; it comes directly from the work done at that time.
	Some—including my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell—suggest that that target is out of date, that the science has moved on, that the scale of the problem demands a greater response and that, consequently, the target for 2050 needs to be increased. Let me start by considering the response that is currently being recommended as part of the Climate Change Bill. As everyone knows, the European Commission has adopted the 2ºC limit as its stabilisation goal. It has said that for that to be met, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases must remain well below 550 parts per million volume carbon dioxide equivalent. The European Union has said that that will require global greenhouse gas emissions to fall by between 15 and 50 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2050, with reductions in developed countries of between 60 and 80 per cent.
	As has been mentioned this evening, last year's Stern review of the economics of climate change recommended a long-term stabilisation goal of 450 to 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent, and showed that globally emissions need to peak in the next 10 years or so and then fall by 25 to 70 per cent. below 2005 levels—equal to a 10 to 65 per cent. cut below 1990 levels—by 2050. That means that industrialised countries such as the United Kingdom must reduce their greenhouse emissions by at least 60 per cent. by 2050. The Stern review also set out a strong case for urgent action to reduce emissions. The longer the world waits, the more costly and difficult it will be to make the reductions that are necessary to stabilise at 450 to 550 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent.
	The latest assessment report from the intergovernmental panel on climate change, published earlier this year, suggests that even more stringent reductions may be necessary. The panel's best estimate is that to stabilise the global mean temperature at between 2ºC and 2.4ºC above pre-industrial levels, concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere should be stabilised at between 445 and 490 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent, and that that would require global emissions cuts of between 50 and 85 per cent. by 2050.

Ian Pearson: The Government are certainly not ignoring the science; we have looked carefully at the fourth assessment report and I have tried to explain the Government's view in the light of our assessment of its findings. I have tried to say that the Government have an open mind and recognise that there is a dynamic process involved, which is why there is flexibility in the draft Climate Change Bill to be able to amend the target by order in the future if that is required.
	The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) suggested that climate change emissions might be beyond the control of the Government, and he also referred to justiciability. That is not the spirit of Kyoto or what is required for the future. We took on legally binding commitments at Kyoto and we hope that we will take on legally binding commitments in a post-2012 regime. It is not, as he suggests, a question of the UK going it alone. He will be aware of the spring European Council decision on a 20 per cent cut. unilaterally across the European Union, and we want it to be more than that—30 per cent. by 2020. We hope to see international agreement on that.
	We do have tools: the EU emissions trading scheme; proposals on zero-carbon homes; the energy efficiency commitment, which is being doubled and renamed; the climate change levy; climate change agreements; the work of the Carbon Trust; and the Energy Saving Trust. There is a range of Government programmes that the hon. Member for Cheltenham wants to ignore at every possible occasion, but which are helping the UK in our drive to become a low-carbon economy.
	The hon. Gentleman does at least welcome the Climate Change Bill. His speech was long on criticism but wrong in most respects where it gave credit for action to tackle climate change. He needs to address the nuclear issue—and the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby might want to convince the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) of the benefits of nuclear.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell discussed contraction and convergence. The Government are not hiding from that. We are looking for the best possible framework through which to address the global problem of climate change. As part of our international deliberations, we are considering in detail contraction and convergence, along with three or four other potential models in terms of the emissions reductions that can be delivered and the economic costs. As I have said to him before, there is no international consensus about what is the right approach to adopt, but I understand the importance of contraction and convergence as a potential model.

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In Bali, we want to reach an agreement on a comprehensive framework for negotiations. We have talked about the need for a clear stabilisation goal, the need to recognise the important role that carbon markets can play, the importance of technology and of addressing deforestation, the need to adapt to climate change, and the need for common but differentiated treatment to run through all the negotiations. As part of that common but differentiated treatment we need to look at the whole issue of equity, which is at the foundation of the contraction and convergence model. We cannot ignore the international context of a model. I have sympathy with the approach that my hon. Friend suggests, but we need to find the best way through to an agreement on a comprehensive framework that will work and that will avoid the most dangerous consequences of climate change. The Government are committed to doing that.
	I hope that the House will continue to welcome the Bill, which provides a new focus for the UK's efforts to tackle climate change. It provides a coherent, long-term legal framework for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Many of the points made in the debate have also been raised in the consultation on the Bill, which closed today, and in the pre-legislative scrutiny process. We will reflect further on all the comments made tonight and those made by stakeholders as we bring forward the legislation for consideration by Parliament this autumn.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House accordingly adjourned at two minutes to Nine o'clock.